Phil Woolas's attack on immigration lawyers shows contempt for the rule of law that binds together a civilised society. It does no favours for himself or his government. It shows a propensity for diktat, an arrogance of the belief in the rectitude of government and its ability to change the rules without regard to the law.

This bodes ill for a country whose history for the last 400 years has been to establish the supremacy of the law over those in power however high they may be. It is the lynchpin of freedom and evens the balance between the power of the state and the vulnerable individual. Phil Woolas may not appreciate that and feel that, despite his inexperience in migration matters, he can pontificate against lawyers. I wish him well in gaining a better understanding.

An attack on lawyers is an attack on the rule of law. Lawyers have to act within the rule of law and are its guardians. Once a government attributes to itself superiority over the rule of law it fails to learn the lessons of history of how that can lead to tyranny, often in the form of elective dictatorship. We have seen many civil liberties sacrificed in the name of counter-terrorism. It seems now that further rights will be eroded in immigration matters. The contention of government is that it acts in the public interest and is the sole arbiter of that. It is a patronising attitude, placing the supposed safety of the public above the rule of law, which is its ultimate safeguard.

Rather than railing against lawyers, Mr Woolas should show some regret and humility at how his own government has been dragged through the courts and found wanting on human rights abuses – the sort of thing that is usually attributed to intolerant and illiberal regimes, not to a supposed civilised society. It is a blot on Britain's escutcheon that the government has been found guilty of inflicting inhuman and degrading treatment on those within its jurisdiction such as destitute asylum seekers.

Throughout the world lawyers have to fight, often courageously, for the rights of the vulnerable against the panoply of the state. The Immigration Advisory Service has a track record of ensuring that some of the most vulnerable do not have their rights ridden over by populist power. Recently, we had a successful House of Lords decision regarding a young man from Kosovo who had been refused asylum, and Monday won a significant case in the asylum and immigration tribunal which will enable Zimbabweans to be protected despite the government's attempts to prevent it.

I understand why that would annoy Mr Woolas, but he should remember that the powerful today may become the vulnerable of tomorrow – the time may come when he or his constituents will want the protection of the law for which he holds such little present regard.